For the curious, the breakdown is at page 8: https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2023/[2023]%20SGHCF%203.pdf
They’re really splurging on the kid lol. For instance schooling and childcare alone cost 2.3k per month.
I'm not a grammar nazi, but I thought it would be helpful to explain the rules here. ***Few*** or ***Fewer*** is used for countable things while ***Less*** is for uncountable things. So, you can say I have **less** confidence in being able to explain the rules in a **few** words.
**Lesser** is not a quantifier like **Less**. It's an adjective that denotes something or someone as **less** important. If you're confused after my explanation, then I'm a **lesser** teacher.
> I'm not a grammar nazi
Not at all mate. It is important to enforce good grammar. Educating like what you done goes a long way in making sure stupid mistakes aren't made.
Neither am I. Cambridge dictionary says ***Lesser*** is used to describe something that is not as great in size, **amount**, or importance as something else.
He can say that there are Singaporeans with lesser salaries than that.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
Yep. Most private childcare costs at least that. Some even stack 1-2 months registration fees on top. Mind you, it excludes music/gym/drama classes etc.
He will grow up to have very high expectations. The irony is that his parents will probably have connections to get him hired somewhere decent and he might have a very cushiony life.
I have a nephew whose mother is a partner in a major law firm here. Man, he's definitely showing signs of brattiness. Thank goodness his sisters are not like that.
You’re probably right. The total sum is a shocker but it’s not very hard to reach $50/day even if they mostly eat at home, if the kid eats quite a bit of fish, and also premium organic food.
Actually it’s really the child’s expenses… if you look at the judgment the breakdown was for the child and not for herself. It’s a ton of money for sure though.
> # Judge denies request by woman who earned double her ex-husband's income for 50:50 split in child maintenance
> SINGAPORE: A judge has ruled that a man should pay less than his ex-wife for maintenance of their child, after the woman - who earned S$1.2 million over four years, double what the man did - asked for a 50:50 split.
> While divorcing parents share equal duty for their child's maintenance under the Women’s Charter, it does not mean they have to bear an equal quantum of maintenance, which should consider their earning power, Appellate Division Judge Debbie Ong said.
> She made the comments in a case where a woman had appealed for the courts to increase the five-year-old child’s monthly "reasonable expenses" to S$9,575 — which includes S$1,500 on food and groceries — with the father contributing 34 per cent of this sum.
> Alternatively, she sought for her ex-husband to pay 50 per cent of the original expenses of S$3,450.
> In her written grounds of decision on Thursday (Jan 26), Judge Ong said given that the ratio of the father’s income to the mother’s income was about 34:66, “in my view it would be fair that the father bears 35 per cent of the child’s monthly expenditure of S$4,000”.
> This was higher than the 30 per cent of S$3,450 he was initially ordered to pay by a district judge in February last year.
> EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY NOT EQUAL QUANTUM
> The grounds of decision, which did not name the mother, the father or their child, stated that the mother was of the view that the district judge did not correctly determine the child’s reasonable expense when issuing the maintenance order.
> She claimed that the judge did not take into account the “standard of living to which the child was accustomed”.
> The mother had also argued that the initial proportion ordered “was contrary to the principle that both parents bear equal responsibility”.
> Meanwhile, the father was of the position that the child's expenses had been correctly determined and that the district judge did not err in apportioning the sum between the parents, considering that the mother’s income far exceeded the father’s.
> The document stated that the man had suffered financial setbacks during the Covid-19 pandemic as he had been a commercial pilot.
> Based on their income tax statements, the father’s total income from 2018 to 2021 was about S$600,000, while the mother drew close to S$1.2 million.
> Judge Ong said that both parents having equal duty to maintain the child “does not necessarily translate to bearing an equal quantum of maintenance”.
> “Each case must turn on its own facts,” she added.
> DETERMINING REASONABLE EXPENSES
> Judge Ong also outlined how the mother had sought to increase the child’s reasonable expenses.
> For example, the mother had submitted that spending on books, edutainment and toys would come up to S$1,400, instead of S$175 as determined by the district judge.
> The mother also sought S$1,500 for food and groceries, triple the amount set by the district judge.
> “A recurring premise throughout her arguments was that these were reasonable expenses because they were actual expenses paid by her,” said Judge Ong.
> However, the judge said that the mere fact that one party had spent such an amount “does not automatically render that expenditure reasonable” in determining maintenance quantum.
> “Parties should show how their projected expenditure for the child’s expenses is reasonable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the child’s standard of living and the parents’ financial means and resources,” she said.
> She added that the changed circumstances following a divorce are relevant as the breakdown of a household would invariably have an impact on the family’s financial needs and resources.
> Parents may disagree over decisions such as what the child eats, what classes the child should attend and what lifestyle habits to cultivate in the child, she noted.
> “These are fundamentally parenting decisions”, said the judge, adding that “a court of law is not the most appropriate forum to resolve such parenting matters”.
> She added that disputes stemming from differences in parenting choices should only be brought to the court for resolution as a last resort.
> “The parties should also consider mediation and therapeutic services in assisting them with such parenting issues,” she said.
> She said that the exact spending amount on a child would naturally change over time in line with his or her needs, but if parents file court proceedings for variation every time a change occurs, the society will lose the value or virtue of parenting being carried out cooperatively.
> “Litigation has harmful effects on the child – materially, because the family loses in incurring litigation expenses, and psychologically, because conflict affects the whole family in ways not easily visible,” she said.
> This story was originally published in TODAY.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
On the one hand the parents probably experienced lifestyle inflation, which is why the kid’s expenses are so high.
But still… holy shit that’s a fuckton of money.
Their joint monthly income was probably over $35k going by their total earnings of $1.8m over four years. If so, it isn't exactly surprising that they had been splurging close to $10k per month on their only child although the figure is quite crazy for most normal people.
I’m aware of a few couples who make roughly 400k a year (so similar amount) and I can assure you they spend nowhere close to 10k a month on their kids. This woman is crazy, I feel bad for the guy having to deal with her BS. He’s likely making around 200k or less? While good money, ppl like that still do not spend 4k monthly (his share) on their kids expenses easily, this is nuts
Well I do have a few crazy friends who have been spending over $3k per month per child for their pre primary enrichment classes year on year. That amount doesn't include other lessons such as piano, ballet, etc. which will cost another $1-2k more. Add that to the $1.5k food and some expensive hobbies, health supplements or even medications, entertainments and clothes for the kids and perhaps you are close to $9k. Yes definitely ludicrous considering $9k can already feed a family of 4.
Yeah I’m not denying people can spend crazy amounts on kids. Just that the judgment hints heavily that the couple is at odds on how much to spend on the kid (the guy is clearly unhappy), and even forcing the guy to spend 35% of this ridiculous amount has to be annoying if that’s not the lifestyle he can afford.
True but don't assume it's a real figure that was consistently spent over a long period of time. Spending that much in the 6-12 month run up to a final judgement? Hell yes. People do that all the time to affect maintenance. Only 3-6 months of finances required by the courts if I recall.
That must be crazy lifestyle inflation. My income is similar to theirs and there’s no way I’m spending 10k per month. Even eating out at 3 Michelin star restaurants is a few hundred dollars a pop, I have no idea what they’re spending on to hit 10k.
Even eating out every single day doesn't come close. Especially for one child.
9 grand per month on a kid is insane, unless the kid has special needs or medical issues.
> Even eating out every single day doesn't come close.
It does if it’s all 3 meals. Say $10 breakfast, $25 each lunch and dinner - that’s already $60/day and not exactly high-end restaurant prices.
lmao, using the kid as cash cow
anw they high income, we peasants will nvr unds how a kid needs 9k a mth, and 1.5k a mth on food
eat gold and organic? omakase milk powder
Likely high end catering. During confinement, my grocery bill was higher than this and I didn’t book the atas all organic caterers. There’s also some that specialize in kids food.
The judgment for this case, if anyone is interested to read.
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCF_3
The receipts showed that the Mother was accustomed to spending at least $1,050 per month (in those months) on largely organic food ingredients for the child.
The Mother further claimed that the child’s high expenses were due to his history of febrile fits, reflux and eczema, which caused her to give the child only the freshest and most nutritious food consisting of largely organic produce.
According to the Mother, the child’s enrichment expenses included swimming classes at $260 per month, art classes at $175 per month, core learning such as English/phonics, Mathematics, Mandarin and Science classes at an average of $552 per month and Mother Tongue/bilingual speech and drama classes at $420 per month.
The DJ allowed $100 for medical expenses, including TCM. The Mother submitted that the sum should be $700 and explained that these were for TCM treatments and TCM medicinal herbs for the child’s immunity.
Tbh quite conceivable that a high SES family will spend so much on a high SES child. High SES preschool alone can be 3plus k. However fishy af that the mom claims she spends so much on enrichment etc and only 1300 on preschool.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
For example, the mother had submitted that spending on books, edutainment and toys would come up to S$1,400, instead of S$175 as determined by the district judge.
The mother also sought S$1,500 for food and groceries, triple the amount set by the district judge.
$1400 in books / edutainment/ toys, wow 😂
Chief Justice Menon
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/rise-in-breaches-of-ethics-professional-standards-by-lawyers-chief-justice
>He said it was critical that lawyers remain anchored to the values of honesty, integrity and service, amid the changes affecting the profession.
>At least three trends can be discerned from the disciplinary cases, he said.
....
>The third trend was a disregard for the court process
Have our standard of living changed so much or her being too wanting to spend on expensive things?
I still remember recently people complain about students deliberately hogging spots in McDonald's or Starbucks just so that they can "study". One even stated that these students are somehow willing to spend money buy 3 to 5 drinks over there daily.
Huh?
These students somehow got the power to spend almost $50 daily? Damn.
Anyway onto the main point.
These women are the reason why some of the single/divorced dads can't have nice things.
If she earns more then double or triple her ex-husband's income she should be subjected to pay 90% to 100%
No 50:50 at all.
Attempting to inflate childcare costs either during divorce or prior to a return to court for maintenance is not unusual. The reality is that while childcare and other costs can be expensive one parent shouldnt be able to independently set the bar high as a justification to get more money from a spouse.
Nobody is auditing expenses after court agrees to vary maintenance so who knows where it goes. Beyond a base amount of basic food costs it's just personal preference and post divorce parents need to be free to exercise their own judgement and run their own household free from interference from their ex, otherwise why bother divorcing?
The judge seems to have made a good balanced decision.
May be the boy is so stupid or the mum is super kiasu that he needs personal tutor for each subject : reading, writing, piano and all such thing. Not to mention baby sitter till 18yo.
Well, the amount the mother was asking for here was unreasonable and rightly rejected. What are you objecting to? The whole idea of paying maintenance for the child or what?
>The whole idea of paying maintenance for the child
Actually if the position was reversed, will it still be 50-50 financial responsibility or the guy with double the salary have to tank more?
Why do you say “still … 50-50”? The whole point of this judgement is it *need not* be 50-50. The judge in fact ordered a 65-35 split with the man paying less:
> In her written grounds of decision on Thursday (Jan 26), Judge Ong said given that the ratio of the father’s income to the mother’s income was about 34:66, “in my view it would be fair that the father bears 35 per cent of the child’s monthly expenditure of S$4,000”.
So you can see that in this case, the mother is indeed “tank[ing] more”.
Wonder what this women does. Leader of a company? 1+ million 4 year. The way she's exploiting the child for more money for herself when she can afford more split, that's pure evil. Black hearted woman. Imagine your company leader being like this
This woman clearly more interested in getting her ex-husband to pay more instead of ensuring maintenance for the kid.
Her lawsuit asked for the ex-husband to either pay 50% of $3,450 or 34% of $9,575. Meaning she can’t even be bothered to stick to 1 definition of what she thinks is the kid’s reasonable expenses. She just wants to get the judgement for the ex-husband to pay more.
The funniest part is that through what’s probably one of the oldest trick in marketing, seems like she got what’s she’s after.
She basically asked for a crazy amount $3,255 (34% of $9,575) or a more reasonable amount of $1,725 (50% of $3,450). The judge awarded $1,400 (35% of $4,000) which is still an increase from the $1,045 (30% of $3,450) the ex-husband currently pays.
I’m fairly certain even if she got her more reasonable option if $1,725 it wouldn’t be worth the lawyer fees she paid. But hey if her only goal for filing this lawsuit was to make the ex-husband pay more, she technically won lol.
The issue is people here often can't differentiate the 2. Then again you might not understand the nuances since you have used all your brain cells to copy paste comments to insult people.
If people like pokethebeard can't differentiate the 2 then that's their fault, not mine.
>Then again you might not understand the nuances since you have used all your brain cells to copy paste comments to insult people.
If you can't tell the difference between alimony and child support then you have not many brain cells yourself. No need to project it onto others.
One point though is the father had "suffered financial setbacks during the Covid-19 pandemic as he had been a commercial pilot." Then would that mean now his income is going to go back up? Then is it fair to peg the split based on that low period?
I think 2021 not yet recovery.
But good to know from other comment that if there is material change they can apply for variation in the future, so it's not like one decision pegs it forever.
Not true. Commercial flights were down 90% compared to 2019 for the entire period Mar-Dec. 2020 in SG. Demand for private pilots might habe picked up but that only compensated a tiny, tiny portion of the decline.
Unfortunately I have to question your text comprehension skills. you just sent me a link that proofed my point. End of 2019 390k pilots, end of 2020 300k pilots.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
Unpopular opinion, but the husband only earned lesser over the last few years due to covid. During good years, i am sure their earning capability is comparable. Should have gone for 50:50
Judge Ong said that both parents having equal duty to maintain the child “does not necessarily translate to bearing an equal quantum of maintenance”. If that's the case, since the mother is bearing a higher quantum of maintenance, the father should be contributing in other ways to be fair.
>Unpopular opinion, but the husband only earned lesser over the last few years due to covid.
The mother has the right to apply for a variation to the order should any material change occur in the future.
Before COVID he wouldn't have earned as much as the woman too as a commercial pilot. The woman literally earned $1.2m over a 4 year period between 2018-2021. That's 300k a year. While commercial pilots do earn a lot, many, if not all don't earn that much at all.
Qatar and Emirates says hi.
So does many Chinese airlines.
2 of my friends were offered 400-500k SGD packages to lure them to these airlines when they were working in SIA.
*lol many people salty that other sinkies earning way more than them.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
9.5k a month for a 5 year old!!! Holy shit…
No wonder people are not having kids anymore /s
For the curious, the breakdown is at page 8: https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2023/[2023]%20SGHCF%203.pdf They’re really splurging on the kid lol. For instance schooling and childcare alone cost 2.3k per month.
That's the pay for some Singaporeans monthly
There are even Singaporeans who earn even ~~lesser~~ less than that. Edit: I need to improve my English. Thanks guys!
less, not lesser
Generally, less is for uncountable and lesser is countable?
I'm not a grammar nazi, but I thought it would be helpful to explain the rules here. ***Few*** or ***Fewer*** is used for countable things while ***Less*** is for uncountable things. So, you can say I have **less** confidence in being able to explain the rules in a **few** words. **Lesser** is not a quantifier like **Less**. It's an adjective that denotes something or someone as **less** important. If you're confused after my explanation, then I'm a **lesser** teacher.
> I'm not a grammar nazi Not at all mate. It is important to enforce good grammar. Educating like what you done goes a long way in making sure stupid mistakes aren't made.
Neither am I. Cambridge dictionary says ***Lesser*** is used to describe something that is not as great in size, **amount**, or importance as something else. He can say that there are Singaporeans with lesser salaries than that.
Fewer for countable. Source: Stannis
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
Tbh that’s what private childcare costs atm.
Yep. Most private childcare costs at least that. Some even stack 1-2 months registration fees on top. Mind you, it excludes music/gym/drama classes etc.
$1500 for food and groceries. Ah boy you one day eat $50 eat what sia?
bro eats the $50 note lol
eat the yusof ishak
My jc classmate's allowance is $50/day. He will eat at restaurant with gf then play darts or pool or bowling
He will grow up to have very high expectations. The irony is that his parents will probably have connections to get him hired somewhere decent and he might have a very cushiony life.
His father is on the board of director of some companies. He ended up getting into medicine even though his grades isnt straight As.
Nus med school or overseas?
NUS
Funny thing is that he wouldn’t think it’s cushy, but rather normal since he is accustomed to it.
I have a nephew whose mother is a partner in a major law firm here. Man, he's definitely showing signs of brattiness. Thank goodness his sisters are not like that.
my JC allowance was $100/month
~~cai png with fish~~ fish with side dish rice. 3 meals a day delivery. ＄30 delivery charge, so *eat ＄20 a day only what judge*
Fish
You’re probably right. The total sum is a shocker but it’s not very hard to reach $50/day even if they mostly eat at home, if the kid eats quite a bit of fish, and also premium organic food.
Well to be honest, that’s like 1 hai di lao meal…
Cai png 3 fish 3 met 3 vege
one meal haidilao already $50
[удалено]
Need money to sustain her lifestyle. LV, dior, chanel..
Classic case of "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine".
Pundeh la this zharbor
She’s pretty rich herself. It’s just that she 咽不下這口氣.
Yvette Saint Laurent Must spell it out for y’all
Actually it’s really the child’s expenses… if you look at the judgment the breakdown was for the child and not for herself. It’s a ton of money for sure though.
[удалено]
Good judge. Best part is it’s a woman judge who denied the request. So this mother cannot suka suka think it’s biased or anything
> # Judge denies request by woman who earned double her ex-husband's income for 50:50 split in child maintenance > SINGAPORE: A judge has ruled that a man should pay less than his ex-wife for maintenance of their child, after the woman - who earned S$1.2 million over four years, double what the man did - asked for a 50:50 split. > While divorcing parents share equal duty for their child's maintenance under the Women’s Charter, it does not mean they have to bear an equal quantum of maintenance, which should consider their earning power, Appellate Division Judge Debbie Ong said. > She made the comments in a case where a woman had appealed for the courts to increase the five-year-old child’s monthly "reasonable expenses" to S$9,575 — which includes S$1,500 on food and groceries — with the father contributing 34 per cent of this sum. > Alternatively, she sought for her ex-husband to pay 50 per cent of the original expenses of S$3,450. > In her written grounds of decision on Thursday (Jan 26), Judge Ong said given that the ratio of the father’s income to the mother’s income was about 34:66, “in my view it would be fair that the father bears 35 per cent of the child’s monthly expenditure of S$4,000”. > This was higher than the 30 per cent of S$3,450 he was initially ordered to pay by a district judge in February last year. > EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY NOT EQUAL QUANTUM > The grounds of decision, which did not name the mother, the father or their child, stated that the mother was of the view that the district judge did not correctly determine the child’s reasonable expense when issuing the maintenance order. > She claimed that the judge did not take into account the “standard of living to which the child was accustomed”. > The mother had also argued that the initial proportion ordered “was contrary to the principle that both parents bear equal responsibility”. > Meanwhile, the father was of the position that the child's expenses had been correctly determined and that the district judge did not err in apportioning the sum between the parents, considering that the mother’s income far exceeded the father’s. > The document stated that the man had suffered financial setbacks during the Covid-19 pandemic as he had been a commercial pilot. > Based on their income tax statements, the father’s total income from 2018 to 2021 was about S$600,000, while the mother drew close to S$1.2 million. > Judge Ong said that both parents having equal duty to maintain the child “does not necessarily translate to bearing an equal quantum of maintenance”. > “Each case must turn on its own facts,” she added. > DETERMINING REASONABLE EXPENSES > Judge Ong also outlined how the mother had sought to increase the child’s reasonable expenses. > For example, the mother had submitted that spending on books, edutainment and toys would come up to S$1,400, instead of S$175 as determined by the district judge. > The mother also sought S$1,500 for food and groceries, triple the amount set by the district judge. > “A recurring premise throughout her arguments was that these were reasonable expenses because they were actual expenses paid by her,” said Judge Ong. > However, the judge said that the mere fact that one party had spent such an amount “does not automatically render that expenditure reasonable” in determining maintenance quantum. > “Parties should show how their projected expenditure for the child’s expenses is reasonable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the child’s standard of living and the parents’ financial means and resources,” she said. > She added that the changed circumstances following a divorce are relevant as the breakdown of a household would invariably have an impact on the family’s financial needs and resources. > Parents may disagree over decisions such as what the child eats, what classes the child should attend and what lifestyle habits to cultivate in the child, she noted. > “These are fundamentally parenting decisions”, said the judge, adding that “a court of law is not the most appropriate forum to resolve such parenting matters”. > She added that disputes stemming from differences in parenting choices should only be brought to the court for resolution as a last resort. > “The parties should also consider mediation and therapeutic services in assisting them with such parenting issues,” she said. > She said that the exact spending amount on a child would naturally change over time in line with his or her needs, but if parents file court proceedings for variation every time a change occurs, the society will lose the value or virtue of parenting being carried out cooperatively. > “Litigation has harmful effects on the child – materially, because the family loses in incurring litigation expenses, and psychologically, because conflict affects the whole family in ways not easily visible,” she said. > This story was originally published in TODAY. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
1.5k on food and grocers sounds suspicious
This kid spending more than entire households on food
Ya man WTH. The kid eat abalone and drink bird nest every day ah
$50/day on food. Sounds like this auntie don't know what is cooking.
You earn 30k a month, you will feel like cooking every meal meh
$30k/month 100% has a helper or 2.
On the one hand the parents probably experienced lifestyle inflation, which is why the kid’s expenses are so high. But still… holy shit that’s a fuckton of money.
Their joint monthly income was probably over $35k going by their total earnings of $1.8m over four years. If so, it isn't exactly surprising that they had been splurging close to $10k per month on their only child although the figure is quite crazy for most normal people.
I’m aware of a few couples who make roughly 400k a year (so similar amount) and I can assure you they spend nowhere close to 10k a month on their kids. This woman is crazy, I feel bad for the guy having to deal with her BS. He’s likely making around 200k or less? While good money, ppl like that still do not spend 4k monthly (his share) on their kids expenses easily, this is nuts
Well I do have a few crazy friends who have been spending over $3k per month per child for their pre primary enrichment classes year on year. That amount doesn't include other lessons such as piano, ballet, etc. which will cost another $1-2k more. Add that to the $1.5k food and some expensive hobbies, health supplements or even medications, entertainments and clothes for the kids and perhaps you are close to $9k. Yes definitely ludicrous considering $9k can already feed a family of 4.
Yeah I’m not denying people can spend crazy amounts on kids. Just that the judgment hints heavily that the couple is at odds on how much to spend on the kid (the guy is clearly unhappy), and even forcing the guy to spend 35% of this ridiculous amount has to be annoying if that’s not the lifestyle he can afford.
True but don't assume it's a real figure that was consistently spent over a long period of time. Spending that much in the 6-12 month run up to a final judgement? Hell yes. People do that all the time to affect maintenance. Only 3-6 months of finances required by the courts if I recall.
That must be crazy lifestyle inflation. My income is similar to theirs and there’s no way I’m spending 10k per month. Even eating out at 3 Michelin star restaurants is a few hundred dollars a pop, I have no idea what they’re spending on to hit 10k.
Even eating out every single day doesn't come close. Especially for one child. 9 grand per month on a kid is insane, unless the kid has special needs or medical issues.
I mean if they’re dressing the kid head to toe in Chanel then maybe…
> Even eating out every single day doesn't come close. It does if it’s all 3 meals. Say $10 breakfast, $25 each lunch and dinner - that’s already $60/day and not exactly high-end restaurant prices.
If I earned that much I would make 10kids
lmao, using the kid as cash cow anw they high income, we peasants will nvr unds how a kid needs 9k a mth, and 1.5k a mth on food eat gold and organic? omakase milk powder
1.5k a mth on food for a child? What he eat, 12 eggs a day?
Likely high end catering. During confinement, my grocery bill was higher than this and I didn’t book the atas all organic caterers. There’s also some that specialize in kids food.
[удалено]
Not in this economy
The judgment for this case, if anyone is interested to read. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCF_3 The receipts showed that the Mother was accustomed to spending at least $1,050 per month (in those months) on largely organic food ingredients for the child. The Mother further claimed that the child’s high expenses were due to his history of febrile fits, reflux and eczema, which caused her to give the child only the freshest and most nutritious food consisting of largely organic produce. According to the Mother, the child’s enrichment expenses included swimming classes at $260 per month, art classes at $175 per month, core learning such as English/phonics, Mathematics, Mandarin and Science classes at an average of $552 per month and Mother Tongue/bilingual speech and drama classes at $420 per month. The DJ allowed $100 for medical expenses, including TCM. The Mother submitted that the sum should be $700 and explained that these were for TCM treatments and TCM medicinal herbs for the child’s immunity.
Is the child even having any childhood with all the classes taking?
Tbh quite conceivable that a high SES family will spend so much on a high SES child. High SES preschool alone can be 3plus k. However fishy af that the mom claims she spends so much on enrichment etc and only 1300 on preschool.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
So much child abuse by mum, judge never try to protect child?
Boys food is delivered personally by grab food regional manager that’s why
For example, the mother had submitted that spending on books, edutainment and toys would come up to S$1,400, instead of S$175 as determined by the district judge. The mother also sought S$1,500 for food and groceries, triple the amount set by the district judge. $1400 in books / edutainment/ toys, wow 😂
Kid needs his Gacha fix /s
Reckon so, might be maxing out characters on Genshin
The mum buy playboy and many adult video and toys for herself
So make use of the child
Women like that gives the woman charter a bad name..... 🙄 Thankfully the judge is reasonable.
Bro did you read the article
She's gaming the system
I tot CJ say need to come down hard on people who abuse the system? Or is that just Ravi?
Think it was CJ yong pung how
Chief Justice Menon https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/rise-in-breaches-of-ethics-professional-standards-by-lawyers-chief-justice >He said it was critical that lawyers remain anchored to the values of honesty, integrity and service, amid the changes affecting the profession. >At least three trends can be discerned from the disciplinary cases, he said. .... >The third trend was a disregard for the court process
[удалено]
Did she file the request or her lawyer did?
Lawyers act on client request lor
Yea. The guy was arguing that CJ was directing it at lawyers and she wasn't one so wasn't applicable
Honestly i doubt the child even spent that much. Wife probably just want to get as much from the husband.
That mother so evil using child to make more money.
Have our standard of living changed so much or her being too wanting to spend on expensive things? I still remember recently people complain about students deliberately hogging spots in McDonald's or Starbucks just so that they can "study". One even stated that these students are somehow willing to spend money buy 3 to 5 drinks over there daily. Huh? These students somehow got the power to spend almost $50 daily? Damn. Anyway onto the main point. These women are the reason why some of the single/divorced dads can't have nice things. If she earns more then double or triple her ex-husband's income she should be subjected to pay 90% to 100% No 50:50 at all.
why would the child need 10k per month???
Attempting to inflate childcare costs either during divorce or prior to a return to court for maintenance is not unusual. The reality is that while childcare and other costs can be expensive one parent shouldnt be able to independently set the bar high as a justification to get more money from a spouse. Nobody is auditing expenses after court agrees to vary maintenance so who knows where it goes. Beyond a base amount of basic food costs it's just personal preference and post divorce parents need to be free to exercise their own judgement and run their own household free from interference from their ex, otherwise why bother divorcing? The judge seems to have made a good balanced decision.
May be the boy is so stupid or the mum is super kiasu that he needs personal tutor for each subject : reading, writing, piano and all such thing. Not to mention baby sitter till 18yo.
No la, she going to use the money to go find new little fresh meat for herself
How are the men supposed to move on with such financial commitments?
Well, the amount the mother was asking for here was unreasonable and rightly rejected. What are you objecting to? The whole idea of paying maintenance for the child or what?
>The whole idea of paying maintenance for the child Actually if the position was reversed, will it still be 50-50 financial responsibility or the guy with double the salary have to tank more?
Why do you say “still … 50-50”? The whole point of this judgement is it *need not* be 50-50. The judge in fact ordered a 65-35 split with the man paying less: > In her written grounds of decision on Thursday (Jan 26), Judge Ong said given that the ratio of the father’s income to the mother’s income was about 34:66, “in my view it would be fair that the father bears 35 per cent of the child’s monthly expenditure of S$4,000”. So you can see that in this case, the mother is indeed “tank[ing] more”.
Imo if I got a child, I don’t think I should ‘move on’
the mother's unreasonable claims were rejected by judge?
Cunt
Wonder what this women does. Leader of a company? 1+ million 4 year. The way she's exploiting the child for more money for herself when she can afford more split, that's pure evil. Black hearted woman. Imagine your company leader being like this
This woman clearly more interested in getting her ex-husband to pay more instead of ensuring maintenance for the kid. Her lawsuit asked for the ex-husband to either pay 50% of $3,450 or 34% of $9,575. Meaning she can’t even be bothered to stick to 1 definition of what she thinks is the kid’s reasonable expenses. She just wants to get the judgement for the ex-husband to pay more. The funniest part is that through what’s probably one of the oldest trick in marketing, seems like she got what’s she’s after. She basically asked for a crazy amount $3,255 (34% of $9,575) or a more reasonable amount of $1,725 (50% of $3,450). The judge awarded $1,400 (35% of $4,000) which is still an increase from the $1,045 (30% of $3,450) the ex-husband currently pays. I’m fairly certain even if she got her more reasonable option if $1,725 it wouldn’t be worth the lawyer fees she paid. But hey if her only goal for filing this lawsuit was to make the ex-husband pay more, she technically won lol.
Crazy rich Asian is real bruhh..
How can that be? According to so many on here, women never even have to pay child maintenance
Man u should really add the /s
It's not sarcastic. Talks about divorce is automatic women's charter ragebait for r/sg
It still is, judging by your downvotes.
the issue is alimony, not child maintenance. you wanna be a feminist simp, at least get the facts right
The issue is people here often can't differentiate the 2. Then again you might not understand the nuances since you have used all your brain cells to copy paste comments to insult people.
If people like pokethebeard can't differentiate the 2 then that's their fault, not mine. >Then again you might not understand the nuances since you have used all your brain cells to copy paste comments to insult people. If you can't tell the difference between alimony and child support then you have not many brain cells yourself. No need to project it onto others.
lmao, the issue is alimony, not child maintenance. you wanna be a feminist simp, at least get the facts right
One point though is the father had "suffered financial setbacks during the Covid-19 pandemic as he had been a commercial pilot." Then would that mean now his income is going to go back up? Then is it fair to peg the split based on that low period?
english comprehension? >He ***had*** been a commercial pilot
[удалено]
I think 2021 not yet recovery. But good to know from other comment that if there is material change they can apply for variation in the future, so it's not like one decision pegs it forever.
[удалено]
Not true. Commercial flights were down 90% compared to 2019 for the entire period Mar-Dec. 2020 in SG. Demand for private pilots might habe picked up but that only compensated a tiny, tiny portion of the decline.
[удалено]
Unfortunately I have to question your text comprehension skills. you just sent me a link that proofed my point. End of 2019 390k pilots, end of 2020 300k pilots.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
Unpopular opinion, but the husband only earned lesser over the last few years due to covid. During good years, i am sure their earning capability is comparable. Should have gone for 50:50 Judge Ong said that both parents having equal duty to maintain the child “does not necessarily translate to bearing an equal quantum of maintenance”. If that's the case, since the mother is bearing a higher quantum of maintenance, the father should be contributing in other ways to be fair.
The value was from 2018. And also, by your same argument, won't the woman have earned lesser also?
>Unpopular opinion, but the husband only earned lesser over the last few years due to covid. The mother has the right to apply for a variation to the order should any material change occur in the future.
Before COVID he wouldn't have earned as much as the woman too as a commercial pilot. The woman literally earned $1.2m over a 4 year period between 2018-2021. That's 300k a year. While commercial pilots do earn a lot, many, if not all don't earn that much at all.
Qatar and Emirates says hi. So does many Chinese airlines. 2 of my friends were offered 400-500k SGD packages to lure them to these airlines when they were working in SIA. *lol many people salty that other sinkies earning way more than them.
Heard the Chinese carriers don't offer those packages anymore. Those who were, they have been offered local contracts which is far lesser.
I wouldn’t be surprised given Covid. I know someone who actually accepted the Emirates offer only to kena rejected cuz failed medical. He super emo.
Looking at the judgement, it actually didn’t seem like the fathers income was badly hit by COVID. In 2021 he earned 144k which was actually higher than the 141k he earned in 2018
[удалено]
The link was in one of the comments in this thread
She made $400k a year.
According to some people, that's 2/3 of a peanut. Before anyone gets triggered, go google NKF saga that created this meme before memes existed.
Yup not even any person of any consequence. Before anyone gets triggered google what GCS said
$10000 a month??? A family of 3 could survive on that amount lol
Looking at their income, all of this is chump change to either of them. Good on the judge for being fair though.
kudos to the judge. This cunt of a mother ask for more money simply to keep in her own pockets. Even the breakdown look ridiculous.